I don't suppose that I am terribly unique among older Beatles fans, in that, I have wanted a first state Yesterday and Today Butcher album since the day I became aware that such a thing existed.

When I was but a wee lad way back in the late 1969, I watched my first cousin try to peel his own second state album. The results were cringeworthy, but there was another cover under there and my curiosity and interest in that album was piqued forever.

It is doubtful that I will ever see fit to put forth $ 30,000.00 plus for an original, although if I knew of a safe and reliable source I might be willing to buy one of lesser condition . It's just hard these days with the web, knowing how to spot fakes,and who and who not to deal with. In the end I will probably wind up buying a second state and leave it in tact. I have been selling off a large slice of my Fab Four collection and actually have been putting few pennies aside for such a venture in the future. That record is my favourite Beatles album ever for several reasons, so eventually I will bring home something

Thanks for listening Beatles people - any advice ?

The following people thank sam ahab for this post:

Beatlebug

I've been breaking up dirty dishes and been throwing them away.

12 August 20169.46am

Bongo

Somewhere In Time

Candlestick Park

Members

Forum Posts: 1513

Member Since: 28 March 2014

Offline

42

sam ahab said
I don't suppose that I am terribly unique among older Beatles fans, in that, I have wanted a first state Yesterday and Today Butcher album since the day I became aware that such a thing existed.

In the end I will probably wind up buying a second state and leave it in tact. I have been selling off a large slice of my Fab Four collection and actually have been putting few pennies aside for such a venture in the future. That record is my favourite Beatles album ever for several reasons

Thanks for listening Beatles people - any advice ?

Buy a repro, throw it in a frame and spend your money on me!!!!!!!!!!!

The following people thank Bongo for this post:

William Shears Campbell

BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!

12 August 20164.59pm

meanmistermustard

Moderator

Members

Reviewers

Moderators

Forum Posts: 21507

Member Since: 1 May 2011

Offline

43

Buy an original and send it to me.

The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:

William Shears Campbell

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

"Don't make your love suffer insecurities; Trade the baggage of 'self' to set another one free" ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)

12 August 20165.39pm

Oudis

Candlestick Park

Members

Forum Posts: 1491

Member Since: 15 May 2014

Offline

44

sam ahab said
I don't suppose that I am terribly unique among older Beatles fans, in that, I have wanted a first state Yesterday and Today Butcher album since the day I became aware that such a thing existed.

No, you’re not @sam ahab, I also want one, but you know what? I saw that cover for the first time online, decades after I started to be a Beatle fan. It was a big surprise.

The following people thank Oudis for this post:

Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars

“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)

Any copy of the "butcher cover" for the Beatles' 1966 album Yesterday And Today is considered extremely valuable -- so can you imagine what John Lennon's personal copy is worth?

We'll find out next month when it goes up for auction on November 11 via Heritage Auctions. The album is signed by Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr and features an original drawing by Lennon on the back cover. Lennon gave it to Beatles collector Dave Morrell during a visit in 1971. Heritage has already started accepting bids for the album, which is expected to fetch more than $200,000.

This story says that John traded his Yesterday and Today for a reel-to-reel tape of the Beatles tribute supergroup Yellow Matter Custard.

I always love when they sign dates on things, to stop people from claiming it was signed during The Beatles' era. I remember hearing George pissed off a guy massively who had a Sgt. Pepper's album signed by the other 3 and George signed his album in the 90's making sure to write "George Harrison 1995" underneath it, mwahahaha .

The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:

Ahhh Girl, sir walter raleigh, Beatlebug, SgtPeppersBulldog

INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!

***

Make Love, Not Wardrobes!

***

"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison

27 October 20179.55am

Ron Nasty

Apple rooftop

Members

Reviewers

Forum Posts: 7732

Member Since: 17 December 2012

Offline

47

Ahhh Girl saidThis story says that John traded his Yesterday and Today for a reel-to-reel tape of the Beatles tribute supergroup Yellow Matter Custard.

Well, that detail is wrong. I posted about this recently in another thread. It was not traded for a reel-to-reel tape of the Beatles tribute supergroup Yellow Matter Custard. It was traded for a copy of The Beatles Yellow Matter Custard bootleg album.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

Ahhh Girl, vonbontee, Beatlebug, SgtPeppersBulldog

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

Ahhh Girl saidThis story says that John traded his Yesterday and Today for a reel-to-reel tape of the Beatles tribute supergroup Yellow Matter Custard.

Well, that detail is wrong. I posted about this recently in another thread. It was not traded for a reel-to-reel tape of the Beatles tribute supergroup Yellow Matter Custard. It was traded for a copy of The Beatles Yellow Matter Custard bootleg album.

I was going to say. Yellow Matter Custard didn't form until twenty-two years after John died.

The following people thank Necko for this post:

Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl, SgtPeppersBulldog, sir walter raleigh

I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.

I'm also ewe2 on weekends.

Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017.

27 October 20175.55pm

Billy Rhythm

Hollywood Bowl

Members

Forum Posts: 757

Member Since: 22 December 2013

Offline

50

Ron Nasty said
The suggestion that it was a comment on their feelings about Capitol's treatment of their catalogue was certainly a widespread at one time. I certainly came across it many times when first reading about The Beatles in the '80s. I think that one of the main reasons for it was an attempt to understand what, even all these years later, is a shocking album cover.

There was no explanation of the photo shoot until Whitaker spoke about it at length in 1991, and so people came up with theories that might explain the reasons behind the picture, and that was one that seemed to make sense and so was widely adopted for a time.

It's one of those stories about them that were common currency until being discarded when evidence became available that contradicted the story.

It's funny, I'm one of those who hadn't come across the 'Capitol Theory' until this thread... Makes a lot of sense to me though... If the only "evidence" we have is Mr. Whitaker's interview then I say that it's still possible that The Beatles did, in fact, make a statement here... For one, I believe his story about it being his artistic vision that The Beatles had some fun with, but wasn't the original photo shoot just that? a photo shoot? Management scheduled these kinda things frequently, sometimes without knowing when, or even if, they'd be used and for what purpose...

It's entirely possible that when The Beatles subsequently heard about yet another Capitol butchering of their recorded works incoming, something that was becoming increasingly intolerable due to their artistic nature becoming more prominent, someone within the group suggested that they use that butcher photo taken recently and ran with it, who really knows?... What was their involvement with Bob beyond the day of the actual shoot?... Understand that I'm only asking these questions because I've never heard the interview, or "evidence"... Again, I only just read about this whole theory to begin with...

The irony of this butchering of their records is that Parlophone themselves put out a cheesy compilation of their own at year's end to cash in on the Christmas Market, one that contained only one "new" track, if I remember correctly, and that was Larry Williams' 'Bad Boy' which Capitol had released on 'Beatles VI' many months before... It's no small wonder that they were eager to take more control of what went out... The U.S. version of 'Revolver' released that year was probably the worst of them all... Who's bright idea was it to leave out 3 John Lennon songs for 'Yesterday And Today'?! Completely changing the complexion of one of Music's True Masterpieces in the process...

This also reminds me of an exchange that you & I, Ron Nasty, had years back in regards to the 'Sgt. Pepper' photo shoot... I was sticking to the photographer's account that a certain unnamed German Dictator was placed in behind the four Beatles as you were attempting to debunk that claim with a photo of his cut-out placed off to the side... It's ironic to me that in this case you're favouring the photographer's story instead... If I remember correctly, you questioned the credibility of the photographer (who's name escapes me at the moment) and didn't believe his version... What's there about Bob Whitaker, someone I confess to know absolutely nothing about, that makes you accept his tale so readily?

Maybe this would be a better way to put it... Just for argument's sake, what else would motivate Mr. Whitaker to come out after 25 years of silence on the issue to debunk the widely accepted story here? Just as all of the surviving Beatles and their camp have demonstrated a need to change public perception of themselves since, perhaps the "Big Wigs" were thinking about the future re-issues of the U.S. albums and wanted to begin dispelling the majority opinion that the Capitol albums were vastly inferior to their UK counterparts, if they could even be called that... and I'm not just talking about the butchering of the listings and wanting more porridge... The fidelity is nowhere near in the same league...

I find the long period of silence broken, especially after John's death, a little suspect... If The Beatles were actually making a statement here then it very likely was John's idea... After all, it was his 'Revolver' tracks that were butchered here... Isn't there more George Harrison songs on the U.S. 'Revolver' than John's?... This previously widely accepted theory does make a whole lotta sense, in my opinion...:-)

30 October 20178.02am

Ron Nasty

Apple rooftop

Members

Reviewers

Forum Posts: 7732

Member Since: 17 December 2012

Offline

51

Alright, @Billy Rhythm, how goes it?

There was always talk that Bob had a vision for what he was trying to create on the Butcher cover photograph was taken, it just seems nobody bothered to ask Bob what that vision was until years later, which prompted him to reveal how several of the images would have been presented had he been allowed.

The back story was always there, we just had to wait for the detail.

The difference between this and Peter Blake's memory of the Sgt. Peppercover shoot?

All involved in this said it was part of a big idea that they couldn't quite remember, and we had to wait for Bob to reveal the idea he had in his head originally. With Pepper, we know Hitler was intended, we know he isn't visible. We have some involved saying Hitler was removed from the montage, we have Peter Blake saying that Hitler was hidden within (behind the waxworks if I recall correctly).

Here you have differing accounts from those involved, along with photographic evidence.

When you judge all the eyewitness accounts that Hitler was removed, along with photographic evidence that Hitler was removed, alongside just one person, Peter Blake, saying Hitler wasn't removed, but instead shoved behind the waxworks, you have to decide whether the view of the one or the many is better supported by the evidence, and with photographs showing Hitler clearly removed, I believe the statements carry more weight than Mr. Blake's - especially since he has also the Hitler portrait was removed in some accounts.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

My angle is that of, everyone's memory is correct... The cut out in question for Sgt. Pepper could've been placed off to the side for some shots and, according to the photographer, placed behind the four Beatles for the shot that they actually used (he wanted to please John and have him in there whilest agreeing with the rest that it simply was too controversial)... My point is, there doesn't have to always be a right/wrong, but that everyone's recollection is different but correct... I feel that the same could very well be applied to the 'Yesterday And Today' cover... Bob's memories are sound but he probably didn't think much beyond achieving his artistic vision here at the time... The idea for using it for a Capitol sleeve may very well have taken off after the shoot was done... Someone all ready posted in this thread atleast two other instances where shots from this session were used for something else before 'Yesterday And Today' was even released...

I thought about another interview clip from the 'Anthology' video (perhaps around the 'Please Please Me' L.P. segment?) were John Lennon discusses how a singer/group would have a hit single then build an album around it and how they didn't want to do that... Isn't that kind of exactly what Capitol did here with 'Yesterday And Today'? Wasn't it a bunch of songs removed from their albums built around the 'Yesterday' single? I'm thinking that, as with the 'Sgt. Pepper' shoot, there's no incorrect information here... Contradicting reports perhaps, but Contradiction is Balance...:-)

3 November 20171.32am

Martha

Candlestick Park

Members

Forum Posts: 1277

Member Since: 27 February 2017

Offline

53

John's personal copy of the Yesterday and Today Album with the butcher cover and with illustrations by John on the back cover will be auctioned in Dallas on 11th November. It's expected to be sold for 200 000$.

Not once does the diversity seem forced -- the genius of the record is how the vaudevillian "When I'm 64" seems like a logical extension of "Within You Without You" and how it provides a gateway to the chiming guitars of "Lovely Rita. - Stephen T. Erlewine on Sgt Pepper's

3 November 20177.35am

Ahhh Girl

sailing on a winedark open sea

Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers

Forum Posts: 15793

Member Since: 20 August 2013

Offline

54

I wish I could at least see this record in person. Dallas is only a 3-hour drive away.

I think the Butcher Cover was a great idea, for pure shock value. No one would have ever expected the Beatles to have an album cover where they're surrounded by decapitated babies and rotting meat. Clearly done to shed the 'loveable moptop' image. Great idea

"We were a really tight little band. We were just little rockers" - Sir Paul McCartney

12 December 201710.52pm

Pineapple Records

Hollywood Bowl

Members

Forum Posts: 728

Member Since: 14 May 2015

Offline

56

You'd think, with the Beatles being the most famous pop band of the 20th century, and the 20th century being in the full light of history, that these kinds of details would not be so mired in ambiguity. Like why Paul was barefoot on Abbey Road (e.g., "I came there barefoot because it was a sunny day", "I was wearing sandals, and I kicked them off", woops -- several photo shoots wearing different shoes...)

The following people thank Pineapple Records for this post:

Father McKenzie, Beatlebug

A ginger sling with a pineapple heart,

a coffee dessert, yes you know it's good news...

13 December 20177.06am

Ahhh Girl

sailing on a winedark open sea

Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers

Forum Posts: 15793

Member Since: 20 August 2013

Offline

57

Pineapple Records said
(snip) Like why Paul was barefoot on Abbey Road (e.g., "I came there barefoot because it was a sunny day", "I was wearing sandals, and I kicked them off", woops -- several photo shoots wearing different shoes...)

Beatles cheekiness, like calling a haircut Arthur or any of the other silly answers they could serve up at a moment's notice.

Father McKenzie said
I think the Butcher Cover was a great idea, for pure shock value. No one would have ever expected the Beatles to have an album cover where they're surrounded by decapitated babies and rotting meat. Clearly done to shed the 'loveable moptop' image. Great idea

Personally I never liked it, not that I find it disgusting,..I think it's ironic and almost funny, but I don't think it fits with the Beatles image and music..

Personally I never liked it, not that I find it disgusting,..I think it's ironic and almost funny, but I don't think it fits with the Beatles image and music..

That's fair comment, although I think that's partly why they did it though, to say "we're not just a band who make lovey dovey pop songs all the time",they decided to be a bit edgy,go against the grain a bit.

I think that Paul also said that they were all a bit pissed off around that time at being asked to do so many photoshoots and interviews,so maybe that had something to do with it also. I think he said that sometimes, they'd be doing a photoshoot, and it'd literally take hours to get the shots right. I reckon something like that would test anyone's patience.

When they started breaking away from the Love Me Do's and She Loves You's and branched out a bit,that's when they produced their best work, undoubtedly helped by all the drugs they were using

"We were a really tight little band. We were just little rockers" - Sir Paul McCartney

18 December 20179.35am

Dark Overlord

Nowhere Land

Rishikesh

Members

Forum Posts: 3325

Member Since: 9 March 2017

Offline

60

I know this is a touchy subject but since it's Beatles related I think it's fine to talk about here. Do you guys think that the abortion theory is plausible, do you believe that The Beatles dressed up as abortionists with the butchered baby dolls and raw meat representing aborted fetuses. It's a dark theory but then again it's a dark album cover and it's possible that The Beatles were trying to send out a pro life (or pro choice, depending on who you ask) message (after all, the album was released in 1966 and abortion was legalized in the UK in 1967) by using shock art.

By the way, let's not use this thread to have a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong, I'll be very pissed off if that happens, I only want to discuss whether The Beatles were trying to send a message about abortion on their Yesterday And Today album cover or if they had something else in mind.

Overall, while it's a cool theory and it makes more sense than the one that states it's in opposition to the Vietnam War, I also really like the idea that it's a jab at Capitol for butchering their albums. Sorry if this theory is too dark for the forums, I just really thought it was a cool theory and it has a more literal approach instead of the more innuendo approaches of the other 2 theories.

Can buy me love

The Beatles Bible is run for the love of anything and everything to do with The Beatles. If you've learned something new about the band and wish to show your appreciation, why not make a small donation via PayPal? It'll help with server costs, research material etc...